Jim Graham violated their code of conduct

Wohoo! Another example of DC's political leadership in corruption!

by Jasper on Oct 12, 2012 8:52 am • link • report

Yep, making some residents permanent second class citizens by denying them street parking. Then end result of shoupian theology.

For the georgetown link, I think you meant "3/4 acre". Sounds more like the Georgetown Board was concerned about future commerical uses rather than anything else.

by charlie on Oct 12, 2012 8:54 am • link • report

Re: tenleytown.

Matthew Yglesias had it right that its a strange world we live in when someone can't build a building without negotiating who has exclusive use of government owned and maintained parking spaces/permits.

Re: Arlington Board.

Dear Ms. Garvey, as someone who is still currently planning to vote for you simply because you aren't wholesale against the streetcar, you hemming and hawing over endless studies about the type of vehicle that will be used doesn't exactly enthuse me. If you're going to be against it as-is then say it. Don't weasel about things like car design that won't matter unless the line is built anyway.

by drumz on Oct 12, 2012 9:03 am • link • report

I don't understand...if I were to move into that building in Tenleytown and subsequently applied for a RPP, would the DC DMV turn me down? Surely the DMV only cares about whether or not I live in the 'right' geographical area for that RPP? Or does the DMV cross-check against some list of excluded addresses?

I'm pretty sure a lot of the big new buildings in the Ballpark neighborhood are also excluded from the RPP program, and the residents are required to pay for parking in the parking structures of those buildings.

by renegade09 on Oct 12, 2012 9:11 am • link • report

Question: what would happen if an ANC said they would only support a zoning variance for greater density if children living in that building were ineligible for neighborhood public schools? You know, because of overcrowding.

by Dizzy on Oct 12, 2012 9:25 am • link • report

Anytime anything taxi related comes before the Arlington Transportation Commission, that cab driver always show up to testify and always has something super-insightful to say; he seems like an amazing guy in addition to apparently being an awesome cab driver. My hat is off to you Mr. Green!

by Chris Slatt on Oct 12, 2012 9:28 am • link • report

You mean like if they were zoned for a public school in some other part of town? Thats actually not uncommon, including in the suburbs.

Or do you mean they would not have access to any free public school - when ALL other students in the jurisdiction are? I mean you do realize that neighborhood parking passes in many jurisdictions only go to people who live in the parking zones, and are not a right that everyone in the city necessarily has. Public schools just don't work the same way as residential parking zones, now or historically, and I am sure any court would recognize that.

There would also of course be the issue of PARENTS making a decision on behalf of children. Parents (unless qualified to homeschool and with an approved homeschool plan) cannot deny their children schooling, or they are liable under truancy laws. I don't think theres anything comparable wrt parking - I can choose to not have a car, or to park it far away, or whatever without violating anyone else's right.

It does seem odd how much arm chair constitutional lawyering is going to try to argue against what looks very much like a win-win solution.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 12, 2012 9:33 am • link • report

. Sounds more like the Georgetown Board was concerned about future commerical uses rather than anything else.

That may have been one of the statements, but an 11-car garage isn't going to do much for a 200-person party. It may be excessive for personal use (but so what), but it's not going to handle valet parking for any serious event.

The only plausible logic is resentment. Now, perhaps the owner should have considered waiving rights to RPPs for the owner.

by ah on Oct 12, 2012 9:34 am • link • report

@AWOTC

I meant the former: being zoned for a district other than the one in whose boundary you reside.

You say that's not an uncommon practice. Could you give me some examples?

by Dizzy on Oct 12, 2012 9:39 am • link • report

RPP goes by street address, not just block. Any address, including any portion of a block, that is in a commercial zone is not eligible for participation in RPP.

I don't know of any apartment buildings with a commercial zone address that have RPP. I also don't know of any apartment buildings with addresses in a RPP zone that are not eligible for RPP.

by Tom Coumaris on Oct 12, 2012 9:40 am • link • report

@Awalker; you mean like ARLINGTON COUNTY BOARD v. RICHARDS, 434 U.S. 5?

Just because it is consitutional doesn't make it right (see Dred Scott, Korematsu, and a host of recent civil rights cases).

by charlie on Oct 12, 2012 9:41 am • link • report

@Dizzy,
I agree that the question of access to the local public school is the most closely related example to the RPP program. Both questions relate to whether your contract with the management company takes precedence over your relationship to city right / services.

If we assume that the new building is zoned in the same public school area as the surrounding houses, could a hypothetical clause in your lease prevent you from sending your kids to that public school? Presumably, you could still try to send your kids to the local public school and your kids would be accepted to that school, but the management company could then terminate your lease owing to breach of contract.

by renegade09 on Oct 12, 2012 9:44 am • link • report

Dizzy - it depends on what you mean by "reside" In Fairfax, there folks who live close to a particular school, and are zoned for one much more distant. The zones on a map look like classical gerrymanders. Now its always the school FOR YOUR ZONE - just that the zones are funny. I don't know off hand of any zones where theres a donut around a particular development - but I don't see any reason why that would not be possible.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 12, 2012 9:47 am • link • report

"Just because it is consitutional doesn't make it right (see Dred Scott, Korematsu, and a host of recent civil rights cases)."

but this IS right. It gives the people who move into the new building cheaper units then would be available if parking were required, while saving the on street spaces for the existing residents. And it gets more people closer to transit, gives DC more prop tax revenue, reduces green house gases, etc, etc.

I can't see who is hurt, other than those who dont want the compromise because they are simply against density, or those with an ideological fixation on the so called "war on the car"

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 12, 2012 9:51 am • link • report

Jim Graham has been caught doing stuff just like this before.

He was corrupt before the recent wave of corruption. He's a trendsetter!

by Crickey7 on Oct 12, 2012 9:52 am • link • report

but this IS right. It gives the people who move into the new building cheaper units then would be available if parking were required, while saving the on street spaces for the existing residents.

What right do existing residents have to on-street spaces? And not just on-street spaces, I would add, but cheap (almost free) on-street spaces?

Developments like this (with little to no on-site parking) are good for DC, but the hoops that Douglas had to jump through to get there are not.

by Alex B. on Oct 12, 2012 9:55 am • link • report

@AWITC

Well, one particular development is precisely what we're talking about here.

I ask not because I think there's some strong equivalence between school eligibility and RPP eligibility, but because it looks like it is becoming increasingly popular for ANC's to seek to limit what they perceive as negative impacts of new development by limiting new resodents' access to public goods that existing residents enjoy. The provision in the new Georgetown campus plan that prohibits undergrads from parking on the street at all, full stop, would be another example. American University neighbors tried to do something similar by asking that the AU campus plan prohibit students from using the Horace Mann public playground, but that one didn't make it in.

Street parking is a scarce public good. So are seats in schools. So is usage of parks and playgrounds. There are many others. When is differentiation and exclusion of students, residents of particular buildings, etc. warranted and justifiable and when isn't it? Where does one draw the line?

by Dizzy on Oct 12, 2012 10:00 am • link • report

@AWITC
but this IS right. It gives the people who move into the new building cheaper units then would be available if parking were required, while saving the on street spaces for the existing residents. And it gets more people closer to transit, gives DC more prop tax revenue, reduces green house gases, etc, etc.

I don't think people are complaining about the lack of parking provided by the building. I would agree that building no parking is good - it encourages residents to not have a car, reduces the price of that housing, etc.

What people are complaining about is the idea that a public good (public parking spaces) should be preserved for "existing" residents over "new" residents. I put those in quotes because people who move into this new building might even move from other places in the same neighborhood.

Does banning this building's residents from RPP also mean that they wouldn't be able to get a temporary pass for street parking? Or that they wouldn't be mailed a household parking pass if that program is extended to the entire city?

by MLD on Oct 12, 2012 10:01 am • link • report

@AWitC: Just to stir the RPP pot: I wonder if the ANC would support RPPs for residents of a new development if those RPPs cost extra. Would that make up the difference in the cheaper housing cost?

Regardless, it does seem like a dangerous precident, have two classes of residents -- those that live in older buildings eligible for RPPs, and those that live in newer houses that are ineligible for RPPs.

by goldfish on Oct 12, 2012 10:05 am • link • report

"What right do existing residents have to on-street spaces? And not just on-street spaces, I would add, but cheap (almost free) on-street spaces?"

I have no objection to proposals to raise the cost for RPPs to a market rate, or something closer to a market rate. But we aren't there, and I don't know if we will be there, whether we should be or not - meanwhile this solves the problem for THIS development.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 12, 2012 10:13 am • link • report

@MLD; Arlington has a similar regime. For instance, I can't get a RPP -- and while a nice clerk gave me a temp pass once, I can't apply online for them.

by charlie on Oct 12, 2012 10:21 am • link • report

Re: GMU traffic study -- note that link to actual article was not provided above.

The study is a sophisticated economic analysis that is not so easily dismissed. It is a reality check on how effective the money spend on public transit has been in reducing the reliance on mobility from single-occupant automobile. It hasn't; over the past 20 years, despite the completion of Metro, travel patterns are almost unchanged. That is because most travel occurs in the suburbs were public transit is basically ineffective.

For a genuine reduction of auto travel, we need to spend much more money -- which currently is not on the agenda.

by goldfish on Oct 12, 2012 10:24 am • link • report

"I ask not because I think there's some strong equivalence between school eligibility and RPP eligibility, but because it looks like it is becoming increasingly popular for ANC's to seek to limit what they perceive as negative impacts of new development by limiting new resodents' access to public goods that existing residents enjoy."

And I think its obvious why they would do so - the new development reduces their well being by increasing crowding. We can increase the charge for those public goods, where feasible - we could, inspired by Coase, simply convert those public goods to private goods (say by giving all existing residents saleable property rights in their RPPs) We could stick to the status quo where we require developers to provide sufficient private goods to reduce demand for the public good, even when thats clearly not optimal (required parking next to a metro station) Or we could say to the existing residents, too bad. Those will have different impacts on how the space is used, and also different distributive outcomes.

Unlike some folks here, I am not obsessed with the unfairness of recognizing a property right to existing residents just because they live there - it may be "unfair" but no more so than someone having a property right to land stolen from the native Americans, or to offering people different life chances because of their possesion of skills and abilities dictated to some degree by genetics, by upbringing, etc. Life under capitalism is unfair - we accept that because some of that leads to better outcomes for ALL. In the urbanist context, I am interested in the outcome, more than the fairness of the distribution. I want fewer parking spots built by metro stations - and more riders for metro- and fewer VMT - and fewer GHG - and better odds for the planet not hitting irreversible feedback loops - the exact distribution of welfare between affluent upper NW homeowners, and slightly less affluent upper NW renters seems less important to me.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 12, 2012 10:25 am • link • report

Perhaps this no-RPP thing could actually turn out to be a good coup if more places end up with this restriction. More residents not eligible for RPP means more residents who don't care about parking and are more open to changes that reduce parking.

by MLD on Oct 12, 2012 10:32 am • link • report

@ASit C: as long as you are thinking in economic terms and how unfair this can be, consider what Martin Luther King said: "Without justice, there can be no peace." What is the cost of conflict due to unfairness? Is this worth the improved efficiency of distributing a resource?

That is where this is heading. Two classes of residential privilege that depend on the age of the building they live in.

by goldfish on Oct 12, 2012 10:35 am • link • report

AWITC,

I basically agree, but I wish that we could acheive these outcomes without constant low leveling bargaining. I'd rather have a strong and good zoning code. But you are right that we (meaning those who don't want parking forced on a development) the best outcome in the circumstances.

by drumz on Oct 12, 2012 10:35 am • link • report

Re. traffic study -- 30 years from now? All bets are off, 30 years from now. Mother Nature is only warming up.

by Ed on Oct 12, 2012 10:37 am • link • report

"@ASit C: as long as you are thinking in economic terms and how unfair this can be, consider what Martin Luther King said: "Without justice, there can be no peace." What is the cost of conflict due to unfairness? Is this worth the improved efficiency of distributing a resource? "

Do you think the renters in the new building will riot because they had to forego RPP's in order to have the privilege of living in a building where the parking minimum is waived? I don't think so. And I hardly think that REQUIRING new parking spots near a metro is a "more just outcome". its not. Its a stupid outcome. Im sure MLK wouldnt have advocated for it.

If you would like to lobby for raising RPP charges to the point where getting one is not a privilege, by all means go ahead.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 12, 2012 10:41 am • link • report

Perhaps this no-RPP thing could actually turn out to be a good coup if more places end up with this restriction. More residents not eligible for RPP means more residents who don't care about parking and are more open to changes that reduce parking.

RPP subsidies will continue to be defended by those who receive them, even if they are a vocal minority. Non-RPP apartment folks won't have a dog in the fight, so won't weigh in one way or the other.

What's more, if RPPs are restricted, the value of an RPP increases, because there's more space available for fewer cars, making retention of the subsidy even more important.

BTW, how about applying the same rules to anyone who wants a curb cut? And do it retroactively as well.

by ah on Oct 12, 2012 10:49 am • link • report

It's pretty logical to limit RPP eligibility for new developments IF they are being built with reduced or no off-street parking in areas where the adjacent streets are already parked at capacity. This is particularly true where the justification for waiving or eliminating the off-street parking requirements is TOD. The Wisconsin Avenue corridor study several years ago found that the streets adjacent to Wisconsin Ave. from Friendship Heights to Glover Park had parking demand that exceeded supply. So if you add significant additional demand without more capacity you create a mess, or at least an "ungreen" outcome where more and more motorists circle for more time and greater distances to find street parking. Reducing access to RPP for TOD or developments with less off-street parking is what other jurisdictions like Arlington do already, and it makes sense in DC. Moreover, it ensures that residents will actually have to do what smart growth advocates espouse: take transit or use zip cars. As the no RPP condition is written into rental leases or condo sale contracts, prospective purchasers have notice. Otherwise -- if you waive off-street parking for new projects while adding RPP demand -- all you're doing is shifting costs from private developers onto the public.

by Bob on Oct 12, 2012 10:55 am • link • report

@AWitC: Do you think the renters in the new building will riot

That exaggeration is not helpful in this discussion. Nothing like that will happen for this single building. But as more buildings are built with such restrictions, this precedent does create a conflict between the two classes of residents. We are sowing future conflict and resentment by not dealing with this issue NOW.

What will happen is that as buildings are replaced, the more and more residents will be ineligible for RPPs. Presumably residents in the older buildings that are replaced could get RPPs. So as time passes there will be a loss of RPPs and they will become even more valuable. How it will resolve 40 years from now -- i.e., after a significant fraction of buildings have been replaced, and hence the number of RPPs are reduced by that amount -- is an open question, but I do not think it will a nice thing to go through.

by goldfish on Oct 12, 2012 11:04 am • link • report

Someone asked: Does banning this building's residents from RPP also mean that they wouldn't be able to get a temporary pass for street parking? PROBABLY -- BY DEFINITION THE PERSON APPLYING HAS TO LIVE AT AN RPP-ADDRESS. Or that they wouldn't be mailed a household parking pass if that program is extended to the entire city? DEFINITELY. THESE PASSES ONLY ARE SENT TO RRR ADDRESSES.

by Bob on Oct 12, 2012 11:12 am • link • report

"That exaggeration is not helpful in this discussion. "

er, I didnt introduce MLK into this discussion.

"Nothing like that will happen for this single building. "

What number of buildings to do you think WILL cause riots?

"But as more buildings are built with such restrictions, this precedent does create a conflict between the two classes of residents. We are sowing future conflict and resentment by not dealing with this issue NOW."

There is already conflict between those with an interest in more units becoming available, and those determined to limit density. As well as conflicts about gentrification in the poor neighborhoods where some people would like to send density. Conflict seems inevitable. I think this conflict is both less likely to be disruptive, and more subject to eventual compromise (like eventually increasing fees for RPP's) than many other conflicts, including some that are lessened by this compromise.

"I do not think it will a nice thing to go through."

then you might want to support what others here are requesting, which is reducing the value of RPP eligibility by increasing the charge for them.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 12, 2012 11:14 am • link • report

If one is focused on the pragmatic goal of increasing transit-oriented density at the expense of concepts of fairness, then wouldn't one also support restrictions like the ones I cited above? Surely we could cram in more buildings and people around Upper NW Red Line stations (and others) if we stipulated that residents there could not send their kids to the neighborhood schools or use the local playgrounds, local parks, or access any other scarce public good. Would that be a valid means of increasing density? If not, why not?

by Dizzy on Oct 12, 2012 11:18 am • link • report

@AWITC

There certainly are donuts built around certain developments. I grew up in the houses behind Flint Hill High school, big single family homes in Oakton, yet we were bussed to Franklin Middle School. Lanier is like 1 mile away, yet our neighborhood petitioned way back in the day to make it so we didn't go to Lanier.

by Kyle-w on Oct 12, 2012 11:19 am • link • report

I would hope those commenting here will be willing to send letters of support for the project to the Zoning Commission, when it comes up. The ANC made a bold move here (by upper NW Standards) and can probably use the help.

by William on Oct 12, 2012 11:23 am • link • report

@AWitC: I wonder if the ANC has the authority to do this. In any case, I think they are not considering the loss of value of the new development. If this is replicated further, there will be a consequent decrease in tax revenue, which (of course) will diminishes city services. Also, they are pandering to selfish, established residents, that ultimately will make things uncomfortable to everybody. This is a bad idea.

by goldfish on Oct 12, 2012 11:25 am • link • report

@goldfish -- "I wonder if the ANC has the authority to do this. In any case, I think they are not considering the loss of value of the new development." If you believe that parking spaces are important to the development's value, then they should be built into the project. Clearly, the developer doesn't think parking spaces are needed. And, anyway, if the building is built practically on top of a Red Line station and frequent bus route, won't all the residents just take transit??

by Bob on Oct 12, 2012 11:32 am • link • report

@goldfish, I disagree. The alternative is the allow the building to continue to rot on Wisconsin Avenue for another decade. This property will now be put to productive use by virtue of the residents (and follow on property and income tax) and retail (and follow on sales tax) which will benefit everyone in the city.

I don't think it is pandering to the existing residents. I think it is helping set a president which will further establish the District as a leader in sustainable development and resiliency for generations to come.

by William on Oct 12, 2012 11:34 am • link • report

@Bob -- this part of town is auto-dependent. Metro does not go everywhere.

by goldfish on Oct 12, 2012 11:36 am • link • report

dizzy - the cost of monitoring playground use would likely far exceed any benefit, and its arguable that greater usage is a net benefit to existing residents (kids like to play where there are other kids) There ARE suburbs with resident privileges for using certain recreational facilities, and I don't see why something like that couldnt be done there.

As we have said, for schools, the right to education is basic in a way that parking is not - and it involves the CHILD'S right - and the child is not competent to exchange that right.

We have truancy laws for children who do not go to school - do we have laws making it illegal to not utilize your parking permit?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 12, 2012 11:38 am • link • report

"@Bob -- this part of town is auto-dependent. Metro does not go everywhere. "

Then why would the developer be willing to make this deal?

This is the real issue, not this obfuscation about different rights, or silly comparisons to education - its that this is a huge move ahead away from the auto dependent paradigm, and as such elicits resitance.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 12, 2012 11:39 am • link • report

@William: Douglas will include a clause in all leases prohibiting residents from obtaining residential parking permits for on-street parking.

So if a resident violates this clause, what can Douglas do short of eviction? That will be fun to watch. And it appears that the DMV, which administers the RPPs, does not enforce the agreement. So essentially this deal is toothless because it cannot be is a enforced.

by goldfish on Oct 12, 2012 11:44 am • link • report

@goldfish

An address has to be in the database for a resident of said address to obtain an RPP. The address for this building is not currently zoned for RPP and as I understand it, there are no plans to do so, so no, a resident will not be able to obtain an RPP. The same is true for someone who lives 5 blocks away on an unzoned street - they cannot get an RPP either.

What is the problem?

by William on Oct 12, 2012 11:47 am • link • report

DMV issues the RPP permit but DDOT runs RPP. The development's address will be blocked in the system, so residents can't do an end-run around the covenant, nor can they petition in the future for RPP. (Well, they might petition, but unless there's a bureaucratic SNAFU, the petition will be denied.)

by Bob on Oct 12, 2012 11:49 am • link • report

@AWITC

There ARE suburbs with resident privileges for using certain recreational facilities, and I don't see why something like that couldnt be done there.

Are there suburbs where residents from one building are given privileges that residents of another building next door are not? That would be the comparison

As we have said, for schools, the right to education is basic in a way that parking is not - and it involves the CHILD'S right - and the child is not competent to exchange that right.

No one's right to public education would be taken away - you just would have to receive it at another school further away. Countless busing/desegregation cases have held that you do not have a right to attend a specific public school, only that you have a general right to a public education.

I certainly agree about greater usage of something like playgrounds being a net benefit, but if the history of America's cities has taught us anything, it's that many people do not share that opinion, particularly when the sharing involves people of different SES.

by Dizzy on Oct 12, 2012 11:49 am • link • report

"No one's right to public education would be taken away - you just would have to receive it at another school further away. Countless busing/desegregation cases have held that you do not have a right to attend a specific public school, only that you have a general right to a public education."

well if you are talking about zoning an area for a distant school, as we have said that happens. Sometimes with pretty weird boundaries - I was not aware of any donut shaped zones, but someone above said there are such.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 12, 2012 11:52 am • link • report

"There ARE suburbs with resident privileges for using certain recreational facilities, and I don't see why something like that couldnt be done there.

Are there suburbs where residents from one building are given privileges that residents of another building next door are not? That would be the comparison"

I honestly don't know, Im not real up on things like development and beach permit conflicts and that sort of thing. Id be surprised if there wasnt something like that SOMEWHERE in this big country. Im not sure that it would be that big a deal if there was - residents get beach permits, say, but not residents of the big new hirise.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 12, 2012 11:54 am • link • report

The local schools comparison is kind of a red herring. The reality is that most new projects are studio, 1 BR and 1 BR+den. The target audience is singles or DINKs. It's too bad that more developers aren't building larger apartments/condos for families in DC. There may be a few school-age children in a project like this, but likely not very many.

by Bob on Oct 12, 2012 11:55 am • link • report

@Bob

It's a thought experiment, not a red herring.

@AWITC

I think in the donut-shaped zone example cited above, the neighborhood explicitly asked to be zoned for a different school. I know cases from back in Alabama where that was done as well, largely to maintain de facto segregation. Most of them were struck down, but not all.

I understand that you are unconcerned with such differentiation, but I think we need to be very cautious about legally mandating different levels of access to public goods on the basis of residency. I do think there is a danger of reifying social inequality by creating a legal regime in which people who live in SFHs get to enjoy all the benefits of living in a particular neighborhood, while those who live in apartments - or newer apartments - do not.

by Dizzy on Oct 12, 2012 12:02 pm • link • report

@goldfish: "this part of town is auto-dependent. Metro does not go everywhere. "

I'm not sure where you're talking about, but the Douglas development is literally two blocks from the Tenleytown Metro station and right across the street from the cluster of chain stores (including a few big-box ones) at the corner of Wisconsin Avenue and River Road. It's also right on the 30's and N2 bus lines heading downtown and a couple blocks from the H buses that cross Rock Creek Park by way of Porter Street going to Columbia Heights and Brookland. It's hardly more auto-dependent than someplace like downtown Bethesda, where a car is maybe more handy than it would be in Logan Circle but certainly no necessity.

by iana on Oct 12, 2012 12:03 pm • link • report

@William
An address has to be in the database for a resident of said address to obtain an RPP. The address for this building is not currently zoned for RPP and as I understand it, there are no plans to do so, so no, a resident will not be able to obtain an RPP. The same is true for someone who lives 5 blocks away on an unzoned street - they cannot get an RPP either.


What is the problem?

The difference is that on an unzoned street, people can park during the day anyway. If the street is zoned for RPP but some residents are not allowed to get one, then they are unable to park any vehicle during the day for more than 2 hours, if they are also unable to get a temporary permit or have a household pass.

I think this building is catering to people without cars, which I think is good. But what if I need a zipcar for the day, or have a maintenance person or a visitor during the day, etc? Shouldn't I be able to get a temporary pass or use a household pass like anyone else?

by MLD on Oct 12, 2012 12:10 pm • link • report

"I think in the donut-shaped zone example cited above, the neighborhood explicitly asked to be zoned for a different school. I know cases from back in Alabama where that was done as well, largely to maintain de facto segregation. Most of them were struck down, but not all."

If it was done for segregation sure. To make this a reasonable comparison to the parking case, it would have to be due to overcrowding, and a desire by the existing residents to retain their preference.

"I understand that you are unconcerned with such differentiation, but I think we need to be very cautious about legally mandating different levels of access to public goods on the basis of residency."

Then the obvious thing to do is abolish RPP's, install meters, and charge what the market will bear. You are already differentiating in access to a public good based on residency. This is just refining that in order to avoid the absurdity of requiring parking in a building a metro station, parking that the developer has determined the market does not want.

If you can come up with a different approach that avoids that absurd result, and that is politically feasible, by all means advocate for it. I cannot accept that its rational to accept the absurd result because of lawyerly concerns about inconsistency relative to hypotheticals that are very unlikely to occur.

I do think there is a danger of reifying social inequality by creating a legal regime in which people who live in SFHs get to enjoy all the benefits of living in a particular neighborhood, while those who live in apartments - or newer apartments - do not.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 12, 2012 12:19 pm • link • report

@MLD
I believe there will be car sharing on site. There are certainly a number of car sharing spaces within a couple of blocks. There are also Car2Go all over the place.

by William on Oct 12, 2012 12:19 pm • link • report

Zoning a property so that it cannot have RPP is very different from having and ANC negotiate a contractual restriction on RPPs.

The zoning restriction exists because we have recognized that there are substantive differences between residential and commercial or retail property. The ANC restriction is being negotiated by existing residents to deny new residents a public good that has direct impact on the value of their respective properties.

For that reason, this is a beneficial end that is not justified by the means.

by CJ on Oct 12, 2012 12:32 pm • link • report

This is all meaningless.

The new building is in a commercial zone and is not eligible for RPP period.

by Tom Coumaris on Oct 12, 2012 12:36 pm • link • report

Tom, It is actually very meaningful. It is an action by an ANC to restrict RPP access _in addition to_ zoning rules for parking access.

Why did they negotiate this requirement?

by CJ on Oct 12, 2012 12:41 pm • link • report

@iana: the Douglas development is literally two blocks from the Tenleytown Metro station and right across the street from the cluster of chain stores (including a few big-box ones) ...

So a resident of this new building can travel to ANY location in DC or its suburbs with the same speed and convenience as a nearby resident driving a car? Hardly. Car-free works for some people, but not all. Bear in mind this neighborhood is relatively low density and is mostly detached houses -- and most residents drive.

by goldfish on Oct 12, 2012 12:44 pm • link • report

Are there suburbs where residents from one building are given privileges that residents of another building next door are not? That would be the comparison

Do you consider Arlington a suburb? Because residents of many high rises in Arlington are not eligible for RPPs.

by Falls Church on Oct 12, 2012 12:50 pm • link • report

CJ- The promise is commonly used by developers to re-assure neighbors (and ANC's). But it's meaningless.

by Tom Coumaris on Oct 12, 2012 12:54 pm • link • report

@ Falls Church

In Arlington, what body makes the decision regarding which resident gets parking and which does not?

by CJ on Oct 12, 2012 12:54 pm • link • report

@goldfish
So a resident of this new building can travel to ANY location in DC or its suburbs with the same speed and convenience as a nearby resident driving a car? Hardly.
Nobody's saying you can.

Car-free works for some people, but not all.
Well since this development doesn't allow RPP and doesn't have parking, one could assume that it is SPECIFICALLY targeted at those who want to go car-free. If the developer wants to do that, isn't that their problem?

by MLD on Oct 12, 2012 12:56 pm • link • report

@CJ: These restrictions are generally the subject of a Site Plan, which is required to deviate from required parking minimums and is approved by the County Board (after recommendations from various citizen commissions and the local Civic Associations).

by Michael Perkins on Oct 12, 2012 12:58 pm • link • report

Our townhouse development was found to be ineligible for RPP stickers because we were approved under a site plan in the 1970's. It's a general rule in Arlington that site plan = no RPP.

by Michael Perkins on Oct 12, 2012 1:03 pm • link • report

@AWITC
I think the reason some of us (well, me anyway) are interested in this agreement is to know to what extent a contract can determine our access to a public good. If my building was built because of an agreement that said that tenants couldn't walk their dogs in front of the building, would I have to abide by that clause? What if the ANC agreed with my management company that tenants in a new building wouldn't get to vote in ANC elections?

by renegade09 on Oct 12, 2012 1:07 pm • link • report

renegade - could someone from virginia be denied the right to walk their dog on a DC street based on residency?

RPPs are already a limit on a public good based on residency. It seems clear that the municipality can deny RPP based on residency - whether a lease could independently is a question of interest to RE lawyers, but I think not relevant to the public policy questions here.

What I see

"Stop the density, all these yuppies love their cars and their claims to be carfree are hogwash, and they will congest our streets"

"Okay, we will build the building with no parking"

"you can't do that, then they will get RPPs and make it impossible for us to park on our streets"

"Okay, we will make it so residents cannot get RPPs"

"OMG! That opens the way to Jim Crow, pass laws on the streets, and other very bad things"

"so what should we do?"

"Go build something sprawling in the outer suburbs, then we can claim that people move to the suburbs because they LOVE them"

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 12, 2012 1:22 pm • link • report

@Tom Courmaris & @Bob:

Any DC resident living in a commercial zone can petition DDOT for a residential parking privileges. According to the petition form, "Residents of streets having other parking restrictions may obtain stickers upon presentation of a valid petition. These blocks must be adjacent to existing designated streets to be eligible for stickers."

I do not see how DDOT can enforce a lease, nor do I see any authority of an ANC to invalidate an otherwise valid RPP petition. So again, it appears that the agreement between Douglass and the ANC is not enforceable.

by goldfish on Oct 12, 2012 1:24 pm • link • report

Great discussion.

@ Tom Coumaris is right about this property being zoned commercial and is not eligible for RPP anyway.

Despite this, the ANC decided that the only way this would get a PUD from the Zoning Commission was to have Jemal agree to have the RPP restriction in tenant leases. Belt and suspenders, perhaps. Limiting tenants on a property right, arguably, but individuals are free by contract to do that.

This is NOT the slippery slope being portrayed, although I am glad when there is a discussion of potential restrictions on civil or property rights.

Bottom line: readers of this blog who are interested in changing things for the better need to submit testimony to the Zoning Commission supporting this project. Many of those in the audience last evening were the usual suspects from outside the immediate ANC, and I can assure they have plenty of time on their hands to show up at the zoning hearing.

You can too!

by fongfong on Oct 12, 2012 1:42 pm • link • report

@goldfish,
I think you're right that the zoning is not relevant, but your link is broken. My feeling (disclaimer: not a lawyer) is that DDOT could cite the ANC agreement and refuse a petition for RPP, but this would not survive a legal challenge. So I tend to agree that the clause about not having RPP is unenforceable. However, the management company would be within their rights to terminate your lease if you applied for RPP.

by renegade09 on Oct 12, 2012 1:53 pm • link • report

@fongfong: this property IS eligible for a RPP by petitioning DDOT. In fact, a building on the same block, 4622 Wisconsin Avenue NW has already had such a petition, which has been granted (see RPP database inquiry here)".

by goldfish on Oct 12, 2012 1:57 pm • link • report

@renegade: your link is broken

ARRGH!

The RPP petition is here

by goldfish on Oct 12, 2012 2:00 pm • link • report

And what happens when Douglas sells the building?

by charlie on Oct 12, 2012 2:03 pm • link • report

goldfish- In DC we do not have RPP in commercial zones (unlike Boston).

If we had RPP in commercial zones then only residents could park in the commercial zones, which are mostly metered now. That would be the flipside to allowing a commercial address into RPP.

by Tom Coumaris on Oct 12, 2012 2:08 pm • link • report

@renegade09: the management company would be within their rights to terminate your lease if you applied for RPP.

...which they would do only if they become aware of it and it makes business sense.

A resident, knowing the clause in the lease would put her housing at risk, would be unlikely to be forthcoming with her landlord about obtaining a RPP. Further, the management company, realizing the expense of getting a new tenant, would be unlikely to terminate the lease with a tenant that is untroublesome and pays rent on time.

by goldfish on Oct 12, 2012 2:10 pm • link • report

@Tom Courmaris: check out the database. There are single buildings in commercial zones that have been approved for RPPs -- such as 4622 Wisconsin Ave NW, on the same block as this building we have been discussing.

by goldfish on Oct 12, 2012 2:14 pm • link • report

You all really need to read the agreement between the ANC and the developer. There are provisions if Jemal sells the building; there are penalties in place if residents are found violating their leases, where parking is concerned.

by William on Oct 12, 2012 2:15 pm • link • report

@Goldfish
I think the developer must know that the RPP provision is unenforceable. They just want to get their variance and they're happy to make a promise that they won't have to keep. It's likely the same with Georgetown, they make promises that their students won't be able to keep cars etc so they can get permission to build their stuff, and then don't enforce the rules subsequently.

@Tom Coumaris
If you follow the link for the RPP petition request, you'll see that the text stipulates that a RPP does not take precedence over other parking restrictions. So if you have a RPP, you still have to abide by parking meters etc. As goldfish pointed out, plenty of people live in commercial zones and have RPP.

by renegade09 on Oct 12, 2012 2:30 pm • link • report

@William: The memorandum of understand between ANC 3E and Douglas is here.

"In the event DDOT does not remove the Subject Property from the RPP list or classify it as ineligible for RPPs, any resident of ANC 3E may take legal action (“Suit”) as a third-party beneficiary of this Agreement to compel Douglas to terminate the lease of any Resident who violates the RPP prohibition, if Douglas has failed promptly to take such action on its own initiative."

Thus, enforcement can only occur is a nearby resident files suit, a substantial undertaking with significant expense and risk. The only benefit for such a resident in prevailing in such a suit is that a resident will be kicked out of the building -- i.e., no personal gain for person that initiated the suit. This is quite a lot of expense and risk to go through, for zero reward.

This deal is unenforceable.

by goldfish on Oct 12, 2012 2:31 pm • link • report

Thanks for the link.

"Douglas commits that at the time the Subject Property receives a certificate of
5
occupancy, it will have in place agreements with facilities within a 500 yard radius to provide 20 off-site parking spaces to residents."

"Douglas shall also arrange for validated parking for patrons of commercial businesses at the Property with 3,500 square feet of space or more at a facility within 500 yards of the subject property. Such validated parking shall permit patrons to park for free for the first hour of parking."

") should Douglas sell any units at the Subject Property, adding a covenant that runs with the land to the deed for the units prohibiting Residents from applying for or obtaining RPPs; (4) executing a covenant that runs with the land for the Property generally that embodies the promises contained in this Paragraph 4(f)."

So, if they sell the entire complex, the covenant does not apply.

by charlie on Oct 12, 2012 2:40 pm • link • report

@Goldfish,
Actually, I disagree...here's the other bit:
A resident of ANC 3E that substantially prevails in a Suit shall be entitled to an award of its reasonable attorney's fees. Furthermore, if Douglas loses three or more Suits, it shall be required to donate $10,000 to a non-profit organization identified by the ANC for each subsequent Suit it loses.

If the ANC is able to take one suit per resident with a RPP, then they could bleed Douglas for $10,000 each time, and dedicate the money to the 'ANC3E Fine Dining Organization'. It should be a pretty open-and-shut case and I don't doubt the local residents' inclination to pursue such a suit. I think this clause will be sufficient to incentivize Douglas to make sure none of their tenants get a RPP.

I have to give the ANC credit for covering the contingencies and also credit to William for pointing this out!

by renegade09 on Oct 12, 2012 2:46 pm • link • report

@renegade09: Yes, Douglas could loose a lot. But on the other hand, for the ANC 3E neighbor that initiates the suit, there is nothing to gain (other than the satisfaction of causing some poor soul to be kicked out of her apartment). Who would file such a suit?

by goldfish on Oct 12, 2012 2:59 pm • link • report

"Who would file such a suit? "

A. An ambitious ANC member or would be ANC member

B. Someone who genuinely wants to get $10k to a local charity

C. Some crank who spends lots of time fighting developers

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 12, 2012 3:01 pm • link • report

goldfish- If an address is in RPP then parking in front of that address should be for RPP holders. I don't understand how buildings in a commercial zone, especially with metered parking in front, can slip into RPP. Are you sure these other addresses are in a commercial zone and aren't zoned high residential? I know the address here obviously is since it was formerly Babe's Billiards.

by Tom Coumaris on Oct 12, 2012 3:08 pm • link • report

@AWitC: You did not factor in the risk, namely the attorney's fees that such a person would have to pay if he lost. Compared to that, $10k for one's favorite charity is nothing.

by goldfish on Oct 12, 2012 3:09 pm • link • report

@goldfish: They would receive "reasonable attorney's fees." So I think the answer to your question is . . . a lawyer, or someone with a lawyer friend with too much time on his/her hands.

Seems like there are plenty of those within a short distance of Tenleytown.

by Gray on Oct 12, 2012 3:11 pm • link • report

@Goldfish, I think the local residents would be lining up to bring a suit. Rationally or not, they would consider it a point of principle, they would earn the adulation of their neighbors, and if they got to transfer $10K from Douglas to a charity of their choice they would consider themselves to be a modern day Robin Hood.

by renegade09 on Oct 12, 2012 3:16 pm • link • report

@Gray, in the lawyer world billing at $500+/hr, $10k is a trivial amount of money.

Douglas has many such lawyers on had to defend itself. So the chances of a crank-type neighbor of prevailing are slim unless this neighbor is a pretty good lawyer. Such people are usually very well paid, and do not spend their leisure time pursuing lawsuits with little prospect of reward.

by goldfish on Oct 12, 2012 3:19 pm • link • report

@renegade09:

"A resident of ANC 3E that substantially prevails in a Suit shall be entitled to an award of its reasonable attorney's fees. Furthermore, if Douglas loses three or more Suits, it shall be required to donate $10,000 to a non-profit organization identified by the ANC for each subsequent Suit it loses."

The $10k thing only kicks in if Douglas loses THRICE, and it then, the money goes to whomever the ANC thinks should get it. The parties that initiate the suit have no say where the money goes.

Again, this deal is unenforceable.

by goldfish on Oct 12, 2012 3:24 pm • link • report

"a lawyer, or someone with a lawyer friend with too much time on his/her hands. "

I would guess the overlap with ambitious ANC members, or would be ANC members, would be substantial.

"Douglas has many such lawyers on had to defend itself."

They COULD go the mat to try go keep the deal from being enforced.

In which case they can say good bye to ever doing a similar deal again.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 12, 2012 3:26 pm • link • report

@goldfish: But you seem to be arguing that there's a $10,000 cap on lawyer's fees, which there does not appear to be. It just specifies that anyone prevailing against Douglas is entitled to reasonable fees. For any of the many underemployed AU law grads around there, that probably sounds pretty nice.

The charity donation thing is a separate point, as you rightly note.

by Gray on Oct 12, 2012 3:28 pm • link • report

@Gray: so I put the question to you: say you notice that one of your neighbors obtained a RPP, but lives in a building you know that should make her ineligible to receive one. You become livid at this great injustice. You consider filing suit.

Considering the attorney's fees (yours + Douglass's) you will have to pay if you lose, would you actually file such a suit? Who would?

by goldfish on Oct 12, 2012 3:33 pm • link • report

I would think someone recording license plates and video on numerous (daily) occasions of a resident accessing their vehicle parked in an RPP zone with and RPP sticker would be pretty clear cut.

All pretty easy to document with an iPhone.

by William on Oct 12, 2012 3:34 pm • link • report

One day at Douglas development

Mr Goldfish, ambitious ANC pol, is suing us. We failed to enforce the RPP provisions in the lease, since we didnt want have to have to relet the apt. Mr Goldfish has some pretty clear evidence which has already made its way to several news outlets. We could blow him out of the water by bringing a crack team of attorneys, and threatening him with our legal costs. When we do that everyone will find out about it.

What will this do for our ability to make ANY kind of deal in this city, or for that matter this region, ever again?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 12, 2012 3:46 pm • link • report

@AWitC: In addition to lawyers, Douglas can afford public relations campaigns, and dangle lots of candy to far more powerful members of the city council. And I can just imagine their countersuit: Douglas had no knowledge of the illegally obtained RPP, and said ambition ANC pol is fishing for attorney's fees from development companies with deep pockets, and that regardless, the MoU with ANC 3E is invalid because (fill this in with good lawyer boilerplate).

But nobody, not even fooling but ambitious ANC pol would file such a suit over something as trivial as an RPP that normally costs $35.

by goldfish on Oct 12, 2012 3:55 pm • link • report

Douglas has competitors, who have every reason to want Douglas to look bad when it comes time to get future deals. So I wouldnt bet on any PR campaign doing magic if I were them. I think sticking to their commitment, and not putting their rep at risk over one tenant leaving would make sense.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 12, 2012 4:06 pm • link • report

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2012/10/12/this-is-how-much-people-care-about-parking/

The commissioners sought to parry the various attacks—Bender had the highlight when, presented with a series of outlandish hypotheticals, replied, "And the Nats could have won in three"—but the tensions boiled over when commissioner Tom Quinn got fed up with the accusations from chronic naysayer Marilyn Simon.

"That's your crazy philosophy," Quinn told Simon.

"I don't think you listen to me," Simon said.

"I try not to," Quinn replied, provoking a plea from Sklover to behave like adults.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 12, 2012 4:08 pm • link • report

I don't see what the problem is here. The developer says that off-street parking is not needed because the building is practicaly sits on top of the Tenley metro stop. Advocates of reducing or eliminating off-street parking minimums agree that this is transit-oriented development and that residents will ride transit, walk, bike and occasionally rent Zip Cars. There will be full disclosure in the leases of ineligibility for RPP. None of this should be a problem, unless all the talk about TOD and car-free urban living is just empty...talk.

by Bob on Oct 13, 2012 11:02 am • link • report

"In the event DDOT does not remove the Subject Property from the RPP list or classify it as ineligible for RPPs, any resident of ANC 3E may take legal action (“Suit”) as a third-party beneficiary of this Agreement to compel Douglas to terminate the lease of any Resident who violates the RPP prohibition, if Douglas has failed promptly to take such action on its own initiative."

This is hilarious. Clearly a lawyer did not write this. Or at least someone completely unfamiliar with DC tenant laws.

by adam on Oct 17, 2012 10:44 am • link • report